You've been spotted: River Days
Kings Marching Invitational
Cross country invitational
Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count > Archives > 2007 > October > 24 > Entry
Negatives, Schmegatives
A follow-up to yesterday’s post “Gingrich Plan Wouldn’t Work.” One reader responded that he thought Goldberg’s column was not focused so much on how the Republicans could benefit from running away from Bush, as on how they could benefit from a Clinton nomination. Goldberg said that, while the Democrats might suggest that her election would bring back the good old days of Bill, the Republicans would remind people of the scandals and whatnot on his watch.
OK. Hillary’s got negatives. Bill’s got negatives. Beyond dispute.
But look at Bill’s negatives in ’92. Humongous: Draft dodger. Dissembler about that. America basher in England. Adulterer. Dissembler about that. Hard-edged feminist wife before that was cool. McGovern supporter. Lack of national experience, or even big-state experience.
Through much of the year, Democrats and Republicans alike thought he was a political catastrophe waiting to happen (because the polls said so). (This is documented in my book; see top of blog, if interested.)
But, come September, when the Republicans tried to talk about Clinton, it just didn’t work. Why?
After all, trashing Dukakis had seemed to work in ’88. And, contrary to what is often suggested, Dukakis didn’t have more negatives, but fewer, smaller ones. The Republicans had to dredge up obscure stuff to trash with, stuff nobody had previously heard about. In ’92, by contrast, they had the great advantage of working with stuff that was already on the public record, that was being discussed outside of television ads.
The reason that going negative seems to have worked in ’88 is that in that year the Republicans were benefiting from good times, both at home and abroad. They were on a roll. For that reason, they didn’t have to prove that Dukakis was unfit. They just had to plant the possibility, and people would decide not to take the chance on change.
In ’92, however, with people looking for a change, they had to reach a much higher level of proof, and they couldn’t come close.
They’ll have the same problem in ’08 if circumstances then are similar to now. Nonpartisan voters will be predisposed in favor of change. Bush’s absence from the ballot won’t matter much. Nobody will see significance in the fact that the Republicans are trashing their guy if he’s unpopular. He will still be seen as their guy - as, after all, he is, no matter what anybody says - and they will be held responsible.
Sure, Hillary will be seen as a mixed bag. Didn’t hurt Bill. Truth is, everybody’s a mixed bag - and seen that way.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: '92 race, 2008 presidential race
Comments
By TRS
October 29, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this
Actually I tend to agree that the negatives issue is not a winning one; but, you note that people are looking for change, but change to what? I tend to believe an issues based campaign coupled with pointing out the inconsistencies in Hillary’s position (there are certainly enough quotes out there to do that) would be the most effective method for campaigning. People seem more familiar with the Clinton’s tranglication techniques and may not be as prone to buy into them. Iraq will continue to be the wild card - if the Iraqis do not advance toward some political solutions it will be negative for Republicans but if the situation on the ground continues to improve as it has and the Iraqi politicians get down to business, then it could be difficult for the Dems to explain why they were so anxious to lose. Assuming Iraq can be argued to neither party’s advantage in one year, even Hillary admits that Republicans have a natural advantage when it comes to national security issues and convincing people otherwise will require some real work on her part. Many of the major issues can be won by simply putting forth a better plan than the Dems and that really isn’t to hard a sell. For instance in healthcare, people don’t want a government based, socialized program. You recently discounted the Dems strategy of incrementally implementing government run health care as overblown in your SCHIP column, but it is a reality - Hillary even stated this would be their approach some time ago. The Dems are taking a slow but steady approach rather than going for the whole deal at one time. Rep Dingall floated the idea of covering auto industry retirees at Age 55 with Medicare and they are always putting forth incremental ideas such as that. Covering “kids” up to age 25 is another. The Dems approach of throwing enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick could eventually lead to a wall which is totally made of mud. When the Republicans put forth a good, market based alternative, that would win the day on healthcare. Since you brought up the name of Newt, his American Solutions idea could get some traction, much like the contract with America. It is looking to the American people for solutions that politicians seem unable to come up with. While it obviously tilts towards conservative principals, it has also employed a bipartisan spirit. Personally I’d love to see an issues based campaign but I am skeptical as to whether it will occur. Goldberg’s column today was spot on as to how we got to the nastiness of today’s “Jerry Springer” approach to politics. We even have Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas writing books together discussing the fact that political rhetoric needs to “chill out” and stop the personal attacks. Based on the approval rating of Congress at 11%, people seem tired of personal attacks and endless investigations (yes - I agree it has happened on both sides). If we’re going to slug it out, lets do so over issues and not personal insults. In that area, conservative ideas have more than a fighting chance to win the day.By D. Greene
October 29, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
The Republicans run a pro-war candidate, they lose. Ohio is a blue state now.